About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 5
CSPAN2 2
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 12
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
of questions about whether democratic legislators up to and including harry reid would support what the president wants to do when t comes to gun control. >> that is a good question, jon. in the political calculus that is pretty simple. you have democrats that could be embarrassed if forced take a vote on guns. like assault weapons ban, et cetera. those are in conservative states or in the house in conservative districts may have been carried by mitt romney and they're holding on by a thread. we're talking about whether or not senate majority leader harry reid is willing to put those democrats at risk and also then put at risk control of the senate because republicans have fewer people who were running, who will be running in 14 and fewer people who are at risk. though again, the dynamic is very difficult for the democrats and here's a vote that would expose them to great political costs. jon: let's take, let's take another listen at one of the things the president said last night. >> and i know you want these job-creating projects in your district. i've seen all those ribbon cuttin
republicans passed so many things that just never see the light of day. and harry reid's senate. but the way things used to work, you used to pass things in the house, and then the senate would pass things. and then when harold and i at least were in washington in the '90s, then you go to conference committee, and they battle it out. that doesn't happen if harry reid doesn't pass things in the senate. he is the president's pocket veto. >> the step you're missing in that is -- and kevin mccarthy's interview proves that denial is not simply a river in egypt -- there's no conference committee. >> can i -- hold on. hold on. >> that's a good one. that was so fancy. >> is not just a river in egypt. >> that's what he does now. >> that's something brad pitt would say in one of those chanel ads. >> let's call brad. >> standing against the wall wearing nothing. >> he's wearing the sweater. >> go like this. >> you can't get away with saying things like that on this show. >> i want to hear his vision. >> why? more "morning joe." >> i know you're way above the cliche. i'm sorry. >> stupid cliche. >> what
a budget by the first monday of february. senator harry reid said the gun legislation in the senate will include magazine size and background checks, but it would not seek a ban on military-style assault weapons. an amendment could be included to cover that. the president heads to minneapolis to discuss gun control. and the cost of the 2012 elections are in. the final price tag is estimated at $7 billion. according to the consumer confidence index, half the respondents said that the financial crisis went under the labour retirement plan. we are interested in hearing from you if the financial crisis delay your retirement. want to give us a call, the numbers are on your screen. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for independents, 202-585-3882. if you want to reach out to us on social media, you can send us a tweet at twitter.com/c-spanwj. around 40 people so far responding on facebook. and you can send us an e-mail to journal@c-span.org. the survey that was mentioned talks a little bit about respondents' and what they were asked about as far as their retiremen
't attack the president. they attacked nancy pelosi and harry reid. they avoided talking about -- >> but here, they have to go one on one with the president because he's the one that they're fighting with. it is not really harry reid and nancy pelosi leading the charge. >> bill: the other thing they say, we can absorb this. it won't be so bad. $1.2 trillion, that's over ten years. yet the pentagon comes out yesterday with a -- not with a study, they reported that they've already told 800,000 civilian employees you're going to face a furlough if this kicks in. that means they take one day a week off. that's a 20% cut in their pay. again, i'm trying to get in the mindset of republicans who think it is a good idea to let this happen. >> well, even unless -- if you look at the defense spending that we would go back, this would roughly be what the defense department was spending in 2006-2007 when they're waging two wars. maybe the defense department could cut back. the pentagon has never been able to do a full audit. it is risky because the white house put out a memo. i'm sure you s
has a proposal. i don't think it's sound, but let's vote on it. to harry reid, the house, we have done nothing in the senate. it is one thing to be the world's most deliberate body. it is another thing to be the most absent. we are not doing anything in the senate, so harry reid, please come up with one of your own proposals, put it on the floor, let's start voting. if you don't like what we are doing, come up with your own plan. now, as john said, republicans own this proposal on the sequestration idea. it was the president's idea, according to bob woodward broke, that we would agree to it. we got in this mess together, and we are going to have to get out the way and do it together. you are the commander in chief. do you really want a deal to destroy the military at the time we need it the most? you want to do that with asia? what about the low number of ships we have? if you exempt personnel, have you modernize the f16 and f18. our enemies would love this to happen. i am sure that iran is very supportive of sequestration. i am sure that al qaeda training camps all over the world woul
. the reason why it was defeated because the majority leader harry reid switched his vote to no so he could bring the vote back up again after the senate comes back from recease. a lot of republican senators were saying that they did not want this choice filibustered. even if they wanted to vote no on his nomination he at least deserves an up down vote in order to be approved. the republicans decided to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the attack in benghazi so they passed hagel when they come back. the way you're looking at it, to me, it is efforts to delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed as the secretary of defense. he just has to wait a couple of days. you're going to confirm himny way and it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to to do. host: harry reid set a new vote in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: well, they say they would like answers, again, from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do in the terrorist attack in libya. the white
. the senate has not budgeted anything. they have not come up with a budget plan. harry reid and the democrats. they want to put blame on the tim -- put blame all the time, puts the blame on them. our deficit now is 1.5 trillion dollars. it's three times the amount. if we don't start cutting now and worrying about our country, we will not have a debate anymore, we will not have a country left. all these geniuses. let's start cutting fraud of all these illegals collecting all fair and food stamps in my state. let's start cutting that. there are many things we can cut. but nobody wants to do anything. we're going to go down with the ship. host: on twiter -- we already have read these. i apologize. if you would like to continue the conversation on sequestration, you can go to our facebook page. there is a lively conversation going on. that will continue throughout the day. a couple more articles before we get to some of our gas segments. obama chooses and environmentalists executive for the interior. there's a picture of president obama and sally jewell, nominated to be secretary of the interior.
. the president hates it. speaker boehner hates it. majority leader harry reid hates it. and they created it. imagine how the rest of us feel about it. yet, somehow our leaders can't seem to figure a way out of it. we all agree that country needs to find a more sustainable fiscal path. in my view we need to balanced approach. as wes said a few minutes ago, that includes both spending and revenue. cuts in spending should focus on programs that are growing the most. not on discretionary spending, which is not growing. it's not the problem and yet has already borne the brunt of cuts. discretion spending is a part of the budget where america's future lies. it includes such investment as research and education. cutting investment in our future is not the way to solve this problem. yet, that's exactly what the sequestered will do. there's a better way. we've talked quite a bit here today about the impact of the sequestered on an economy that is still recovering. i want to focus on the longer-term, the economy and the nation that we will lead to her children, our grandchildren, and great-grandchild
, sit down with harry reid and urge the senate democrats to take action. the president says this is a bad idea, but yet he's not put forward an alternative idea. the republicans in the house have twice taken action, twice passed legislation. the first time 300 days ago. what we need is for the president to stop using this as an excuse to raise taxes and turn it into an opportunity to start saving taxpayer dollars, start spending money more wisely. the american people, moms, dads, seniors, college students, children, they shouldn't be forced to lose their jobs or lose the opportunities that this country has to offer. it's time to get serious about the spending, and we need the president to lead and get off the campaign trail. >> a proud kansan by the name of william allen white once said something to the effect that the truth will always come out as the facts are fairly and honestly on display. so let's review the facts. the facts are the sequester was the president's idea. it's a fact the house has twice passed legislation to replace the sequester with smarter cuts and refor
and approve the senate nomination, harry reid said he'd like a full senate vote either wednesday or thursday. the armed services committee met this morning to look at the upcoming sequester. those automatic defense cuts set to happen march 1. and they heard from among others the chairman or the joint chiefs of the -- the chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno. >> the fiscal outlook, which the army faces in fiscal year threen and to my hodge -- 2013 and to my knowledge is dire and unprecedented. by the budget control act of 2011, the combination of the continuing resolution, a shortfall -- excuse me -- the -- a shortfall in overseas contingency operation funds for afghanistan and the sequester in fiscal year 2013 has resulted in a $17 billion to $18 billion shortfall to the army's operation and maintenance accounts. as well as an additional $6 billion cut to other programs. all of this will come in the remaining seven months of this year. the fiscal year 2013 fiscal situation will have grave and immediate readiness impacts by all forces not serving in afghanistan or forward in korea.
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)